According to some benchmarks that I have read in the clamav mailing lists, the 0.90.x series of clamav takes much longer to scan a email and uses much more memory and resources when clamscan is used. They all recommend to switch to clamd instead until this is hopefully fixed in the next clamav releases.

According to some benchmarks that I have read in the clamav mailing lists, the 0.90.x series of clamav takes much longer to scan a email and uses much more memory and resources when clamscan is used. They all recommend to switch to clamd instead until this is hopefully fixed in the next clamav releases.

Click to expand...

I read this too, but I was curious to find out what the problem was. I just read that you released ISPConfig 2.2.13 with clamassassin 1.2.4. I will update to this release and see if the problem persists. If it does, I will switch to clamd.

It seems to me that clamscan is always using the /tmp directory to store an unpacked version of the main clamav database. After scanning, these files are removed unless the user hasn't enough space (due to quota limits).

till said:

According to some benchmarks that I have read in the clamav mailing lists, the 0.90.x series of clamav takes much longer to scan a email and uses much more memory and resources when clamscan is used. They all recommend to switch to clamd instead until this is hopefully fixed in the next clamav releases.

Click to expand...

Isn't it a good idea to use clamdscan in ISPConfig instead of clamscan? As you mentioned, it is much faster indeed. And nobody would have the quota problem anymore.

Isn't it a good idea to use clamdscan in ISPConfig instead of clamscan? As you mentioned, it is much faster indeed. And nobody would have the quota problem anymore.

Click to expand...

Yes, thats my idea too. The main problem is to find a way to not break any old installations and every linux distribution has its spamd in another location so we will have to deliver and run a own spamd as we currently deliver the clamscan binary.

The behaviour that clamscan unpacks the files in temp instead of using a central database must have been introduced with version 0.90 as we never had these problems with the 0.88 versions.